Tuesday, July 26, 2016

7+% Of Muslims In US: "Violence Sometimes Justified"

Pew Research appeared to be trying to assure Americans when they reported in their newest survey that nearly 93% of Muslims in the US do not support violence.

Franklin Graham wrote in USA Today: "That is not to say that [about] 8% would actually strap on an explosives-packed vest, but the fact that so many find it justifiable is scary enough."

Obama is committed to 10,000 Syrian migrants by the end of our fiscal year---that's September 30.

As of Monday, 1,515 refugees have entered this month---99% were Muslim, 0.19% (3) were Christian and 0.72% (11) were "other."

Hillary and the religious Left are advocating for as many as 50 times that number.

This is a time to be informed. And be involved.

In its international poll, Pew Research found what Franklin Graham calls "scary."

Most would agree.

Graham wrote in USA Today that even though it is a relatively small number---about 8% of the Muslim population who agree that violence is sometimes justified (1% say is always justified), that is a number worth giving some attention.

He says this group living in the US who agree that violence is sometimes justified are "an open portal for militant Islamic perpetrators who wish to carry out jihad on American soil and abroad."

"And the most likely place that terrorist recruiters or Internet propagandists will find American Muslims who'd be willing to kill is among those Muslims who don't see anything wrong with it," he said.

Franklin makes the case for common sense:

"For example," he says, "would you feel safe accepting a job at a 'mostly peaceful' company of 100 employees if that meant only 8 of them believed a suicide bombing was sometimes or often justified in the name of their religion (or in the name of anything, for that matter)?"

"Would you stay at a hotel whose employees were 'mostly peaceful'?"

"Would you trust your car not to explode randomly if a company who boasted its workers were mostly peaceful had made it?"

"Imagine a marketing slogan: 'Trust us---we're mostly peaceful'."

"And would you fly an airplane with 'mostly peaceful' passengers?"

Franklin, who has dedicated himself to sharing the gospel with the world---both in word and deed, says he is deeply concerned and is urging political leaders to reconsider moving thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees into our country.

CNS News is reporting that 6,726 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the US so far this fiscal year that ends September 30.

As mentioned, 1,515 so far this month, with 3 being Christians and 11 being "other."

The linked article above is informative regarding the actual numbers.

This is a stark contrast between the beliefs of one of the world's best-known Christian evangelists---Franklin Graham, and the so-called "religious Left," which includes our current president and the woman who wants to be.

The case against open borders and the religious Left is a biblical one.

The Bible and Christian tradition have much to say about nationhood. Both, without question, affirm its importance as a principle of divine order.

The Book of Genesis describes the division of mankind into nations and God’s judgment against men at Babel when they ignored national division and attempted to become as one.

In Deut. 32:8, God explicitly affirms His plan to divide “the sons of Adam” into nations. Acts 17:26-27 adds that God created the nations and that He set boundaries among them so that “they would seek after God.” Thus, biblically speaking, there is a direct link between robust nationhood and godliness.

Conversely, the Bible reveals (Isaiah 14:12) that it is Lucifer (Satan) who weakens the nations.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, “The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all peoples were made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalized personalities: the smallest of them has its own particular colors, and embodies a particular facet of God’s design.”

The religious Left always quote Lev. 19:34 which commands Israelites to treat “strangers,” (i.e., foreigners) as natives and to love them as themselves.

Israel did admit “strangers” to dwell among them. Commonly these were “sojourners,” foreigners who came for a time and left. They entered and remained, however, only on the condition that they obeyed the laws of Israel, as stated in Num. 9:14; 15:16 and Lev. 18:26; 24:22.

Some sojourners even became part of the religious congregation. Nevertheless, they had to be from families that had resided in Israel for several generations (Deut. 23:7-8).

Some nationalities could never be admitted (Deut. 23:3). And no foreigner was allowed to rule over Israel (Deut. 17:15).

Because of this, the governance of Israel made national cohesion, through the rule of law, a top priority.

In fact, the New Testament (Romans 13:1-7) justifies government on the grounds of maintaining order against lawlessness.

Most educated forecasts say about a half billion people, including current refugees, want to come to America.

Our powers of assimilation, and our nationhood cannot sustain that. If Hillary and Obama achieve their goals, American culture will begin to collapse much like Germany and other European countries are currently experiencing.

Even as we see compassion as a virtue, we must understand that biblical compassion has boundaries.

Beyond those limits, compassion becomes permissiveness, which ends in chaos and destruction. As has been shown, the Old Testament offers no suggestion that a nation must open its doors, despite the consequences. Nor does the New Testament.

The religious Left often cite Matthew 25, where Christ states, “I was a stranger, and you invited me in” as a mark of righteousness and justification for open borders and "en mass" refugee resettlement in the US.

While verse 32 mentions “nations” at the judgment, the focus of the chapter is on personal ethics and personal salvation. Eternal judgment in the Bible is always an individual matter. Nations are judged in this life, but not in the next.

The phrase “a stranger” does not denote a massive influx of foreigners. It is one person who receives mercy from another, and that recipient—in this context—is not necessarily from a foreign country. It simply could be someone the benefactor doesn't know well.

Christ also says that the recipients are his “brothers,” the New Testament’s term for Christians.

Thus the passage deals with generosity among individual Christians, rather than a prescription for a nation’s immigration policy. Indeed, the Bible confirms a separate set of ethics for governments of nations, as opposed to individuals. As one example, the state may take vengeance against evil doers (Romans 13:4), but individuals may not (Romans 12:19).

The chief purpose of governments, in the biblical model, is to maintain order. Governments can act in a merciful fashion, but mercy by nature is primarily a virtue of the individual heart. Without order, and the rule of law, the ensuing social breakdown will make personal virtues difficult to practice as people have to turn inward to protect their immediate interests. This no doubt is why the Bible links nationhood and government to righteousness.

Compassion unrestrained by wisdom and temperance is a sentiment that degenerates into reckless folly.

1 comment:

Power hungry socialists promise the wealth of the rich to all the rest, as if some magical money tree will take care of everyone, so they can have power over all business, and they even want to go global in their destruction. No, I don't feel as safe as I used to.